Don't confuse her with the Linda with an i.Snakey wrote:Is that all of them? Thought there were more.
*applauds Firefox for spelling Lynda with a Y*
Actually I thought she was the loveliest of potential Dr. Who assistants who were killed off.


Don't confuse her with the Linda with an i.Snakey wrote:Is that all of them? Thought there were more.
*applauds Firefox for spelling Lynda with a Y*


Two points of note: a) Hawking radiation is thus far only theoretical, but I wouldn't be qualified to disagree, and b) that's pretty much what I said. "Black" only counts for stuff beyond the event horizon, where there's no coming back. Before that point, by definition, photons could escape. Whether we can actually see swirly clouds of matter, however, would require an in-depth study of all known and unknown black holes... so I'd like to propose a research project, with a huge beer budget. I'm sorry; did I just say beer?Darkflame wrote:Hawking radiation is the only known output from black holes.
But that doesnt mean you cant see huge globs of swirly mass just before the event horizon anyway.


Well, there's the Wikipedia entry here which seems to cover much of it.WiteWulf wrote:I actually spent a long time this afternoon reading through all the stuff on Wikipedia about Doctor Who, trying to remind myself of all the old plot arcs. When I came across the concept of the Cartmel Masterplan I have to admit to being intrigued. Outside of the post '89 novels has this ever been summarised or written down anywhere?
Turning the remnants of a patchy children's serial from the mid-1900s into a twenty-first century phenomenon that would attract a huge new family audience each week while still keeping most of the old fans watching?grue wrote:Is there anything he is useful at anyway?IronGiant wrote:Yes, this was mentioned on Confidental for this episode - the f/x guys went for the 'accurate' scientific look but then 'God' (sorry, RTD I mean) decided that they weren't impressive enough (or words to that effect) and asked for them to be enhanced a bit, citing artistic licence ...........DutchLlama wrote: Oh and aren't black holes supposed to be invisible because they even suck up light?
The outside weighs as much as a police box. The inside weighs a few tonsIronGiant wrote:I'm also wondering how much the thing is supposed to weigh - for example, in The Robots of Death it materialises inside the scoop and is lifted out of there to another location. However, in Parting of the Ways we have the instance where Rose tries to yank the console open with a tow-truck and the Tardis doesn't bunch a millimetre. Or maybe the Tardis 'decides' if it's immobile or not?
Oh, come on... He's right, it would have looked shit.grue wrote:Is there anything he is useful at anyway?IronGiant wrote:Yes, this was mentioned on Confidental for this episode - the f/x guys went for the 'accurate' scientific look but then 'God' (sorry, RTD I mean) decided that they weren't impressive enough (or words to that effect) and asked for them to be enhanced a bit, citing artistic licence ...........
Not as good as that other bloke thoughHarlequin wrote:Just to get this over with first:
1) I like Tennant's Doctor.
Completely agree. Well, almostHarlequin wrote:2) I like Rose's character and how she's developed, and think that she's got plenty of mileage left in her.
3) I find Ms Piper to be a surprisingly good actress.
4) I liked the idea of grounding the series by contrasting the Sci-Fi with the domesticity of the real world and am actually missing Micky and the 'real' Jackie.
Ah, but you're not counting Girl in the Fireplace, where the Doc was trapped with no Tardis, and amounts to the same thing... As I said, too much. Just doesn't hold the impact that it should now. Think back to last series and the look on Captain Jacks face when he realises he's lost the Tardis for good...Harlequin wrote:5) The complaints about so many episodes featuring the loss or inactivity of the TARDIS strikes me as more absurd than those last year about so many stories being set in London. Since Davies revived the series there have been, IIRC, TWO (that's 2, like one and another one, count them) such stories, at about ten stories per year. Perhaps they shouldn't have been so close to each other, though.
Absolutely. And I liked all of his episodes from last series.Harlequin wrote:Turning the remnants of a patchy children's serial from the mid-1900s into a twenty-first century phenomenon that would attract a huge new family audience each week while still keeping most of the old fans watching?
Awww.

Nope, that one's still completely sailing over my head. Has there been a character called "Linda" or something?DutchLlama wrote:Don't confuse her with the Linda with an i.Snakey wrote:Is that all of them? Thought there were more.
*applauds Firefox for spelling Lynda with a Y*
![]()
Yes, that was a real eye-opener! I don't know if you've seen it in Holland, but over here there was a series on Channel 4 here called "No Angels" in which she played a nurse who was a really, really nasty piece of work. Amazing the difference bunches and a complete personality transplant can make.DutchLlama wrote:Actually I thought she was the loveliest of potential Dr. Who assistants who were killed off.
I thought I'd seen then all...Snakey wrote:Did you not see the episode in question, then?Firefox wrote:Nope, that one's still completely sailing over my head. Has there been a character called "Linda" or something?
Oh! I was probably too busy going "Argh, it's that witch from No Angels!" for it to register.Snakey wrote:http://www.siskoid.com/WhoCCG/9D/cardlynda.html
or just google "lynda with a y"
Surprised you don't remember that. Thought it was a very memorable line